Homosexuality and Pederasty…Are They Connected?

Okay, I know you probably read this title and thought something like, “This guy must be insane! How could he even think about connecting homosexuality with pederasty?” I agree that the title is very edgy and I guess it worked because you are reading this, however, homosexuals and pederasts are connected in one very important way…both use the same line of argumentation to substantiate their lifestyles. With that, I need to make sure you understand this, “I am NOT saying that homosexuals are pederasts.” I am also NOT equating the act of homosexuality, in general, with pederasty. What I am saying is that the line of argumentation for both are strikingly similar. If this is the case and you accept the practice of homosexuality as morally right then you need to account for why pederasty would be wrong.

Dr. Michael Brown gives a quote from a professor from John Hopkins University in his book “A Queer Thing Happened to America” which says:

Homosexuality is no more a matter of voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness. There is no known method of treatment by which it may be effectively and permanently altered, suppressed, or replaced. Punishment is useless. There is no satisfactory hypothesis, evolutionary or otherwise, as to why this exists in nature’s overall scheme of things. One must simply accept the fact that this does exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it. -A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it’s been (Kindle Locations 4509-4513). BookMasters. Kindle Edition.

Do you agree with this quote? For many people this would be a totally acceptable description of homosexuality. However, Dr. Brown gives us a shocking revelation; this was not a quote about homosexuality. The quote is about pedophilia and ephebophilia. Dr. John Money’s actual quote is this:

Pedophilia and ephebophilia [referring to sexual attraction felt by an adult toward an adolescent] are no more a matter of voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness. There is no known method of treatment by which they may be effectively and permanently altered, suppressed, or replaced. Punishment is useless. There is no satisfactory hypothesis, evolutionary or otherwise, as to why they exist in nature’s overall scheme of things. One must simply accept the fact that they do exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it. -(Kindle Locations 4520-4524). BookMasters. Kindle Edition.

When I first read this I thought that this was just a coincidence. The argumentation used by homosexuals for their “rights” couldn’t be the same as the argumentation used by pedophiles…I was wrong. Dr. Brown goes on to quote the founder of Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, Prof. Fred Berlin:

It is likely that no one would choose voluntarily to develop a pedophilic sexual orientation. Those with such an orientation have no more decided to have it than have any of us decided as children to be either heterosexual or homosexual. Men with pedophilia get erections when fantasizing about children. Heterosexual men get erections when fantasizing about women. In neither case is that so because the individual in question has somehow decided ahead of time to program his mind to work in such a fashion. Persons with pedophilia have simply not chosen to experience an alternative state of mind. -(Kindle Locations 4540-4544). BookMasters. Kindle Edition.

Does this include pedophiles too?

I am sure that some of you are fuming by now, which is understandable, but I want to remind you again that I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Nor am I calling all homosexuals pedophiles. Instead of getting totally upset, look at the words that Prof. Berlin said and ask if homosexuals use this same argument to justify their practices? They often do. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard a gay person say, “My homosexuality is no more of a choice than my heterosexuality.” Well, Berlin says that it is the same for the pedophile. Should we justify their actions? If a consenting child wants to have sex with a consenting adult should that be wrong? I think most of us would say yes. The only problem is that the homosexual now has no grounds to justify his/her sexual actions. If you are a homosexual or accepting of a homosexual lifestyle then you probably have made the following arguments. If you are not then you probably have heard these:

1) My homosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation, just as much as your heterosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation.

2) My homosexuality is just as normal as your heterosexuality.

3) Since my behavior is genetically determined and is not a choice, it is intolerant and hateful to suggest that it is wrong. And to call my sexual behavior illegal or immoral, or to refuse to legitimize same-sex relationships, is to be a moral bigot of the highest order.

4) I deeply resent your attempts to identify areas of my upbringing and environment as alleged causes for my homosexuality.

5) I categorically reject the myth that someone can change his or her sexual orientation. Rather, such statements only add to the anguish and suffering of gays and lesbians, and attempts to change us often lead to catastrophic consequences, including depression and suicide. -(Kindle Locations 4564-4573). BookMasters. Kindle Edition.

If you are living a homosexual lifestyle than I am sure that you would agree with most of these arguments. I know that some have renounced the gross statements about homosexuality being genetic, however, the other statements still get used often to morally defend homosexuality. Directly following this Dr. Brown writes these words:

Now, let’s make a slight adjustment in this polemic and put it on the lips of a pederast speaking to a homosexual:

1) My pederasty is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation, just as much as your homosexuality is not a sexual preference but a sexual orientation.

2) My pederasty is just as normal as your homosexuality.

3) Since my behavior is genetically determined and is not a choice, it is intolerant and hateful to suggest that it is wrong. And to call my sexual behavior illegal or immoral, or to refuse to legitimize adult-child relationships, is to be a moral bigot of the highest order.

4) I deeply resent your attempts to identify areas of my upbringing and environment as alleged causes for my pederasty.

5) I categorically reject the myth that someone can change his or her sexual orientation. Rather, such statements only add to the anguish and suffering of pederasts, and attempts to change us often lead to catastrophic consequences, including depression and suicide. -(Kindle Locations 4574-4585). BookMasters. Kindle Edition.

I hope most of us can see the issue. The issue is that the pederasts and homosexuals use the very same argumentation, yet, most homosexuals would totally reject pederasty. The problem is if they reject pederasty then they have no basis for doing so. If they reject pederasty then they leave their position without any argumentation. If they do accept it then they go against what most people would consider morally wrong. Either way their position is exposed. Well known pederasty advocate (what a gross thing) David Thorstad gave a speech entitled “Pederasty and Homosexuality” at the Semana Cultural Lesbica-Gay event held in Mexico City in 1998. He said:

Our movement today stresses the liberation and empowerment of young people. Instead of pedagogy, democracy. Rather than a Greek love mentor-relationship, the companionship of independent and autonomous individuals. In place of male supremacy, a vision of sexual, economic, and political liberation for all. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream. -(Kindle Locations 4610-4614). BookMasters. Kindle Edition.

For all of you that are partial to the arguments for homosexuality I think you should reconsider them. If you stick to them and reject consensual pederasty then you are limiting the “liberation” for “young people”. You are no worse than the traditional people you call hate-filled because you do not believe that “freedom is indivisible”. You limit the rights of “young people” to have sexual relations with the person that they love. And you do so while holding to the same argumentation. Is this not hypocritical? It seems that way to me.

The truth is that just like pederasty, homosexuality goes against God’s law and God’s creation. Male and female were meant to come together in sexual union. Biology shows us this, History attests to this, and God created it. I am asking that you reconsider your views and turn to the one that can set you free. As Jesus says in John 8: 34-35:

Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. -ESV

Thanks for reading.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About Travis Berry

I am a blatantly honest person who loves to think, read, discuss, and write about God and theology.
I have a bachelor's degree in Youth Ministry from Crown College. I work at a church in Houston, TX as a Youth Director and love every minute of it!
I am married to a wonderful woman named Becky and we are expecting our first child in June!
I have a love for God's Word, and a fervor to live it out in the fullest, and I pray this blog reflects that. Thanks for checking out AnotherChristianBlog!.

Obviously, the clear difference is in the ability of the sexual partner to choose to engage in the act. In the case of same sex partners, both parties have the ability to choose and there is no victim, whereas the other case has a clear power differential and a clear victim, not a willing party. Therefore, even if the argument could be formulated the same, there is still moral ground to be able to say that the “policy of optimum enlightenment” does not allow children to be abused.

In the post I stated that I was talking about consenting young people. NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) says that consenting young people should have every right to choose their sexual encounters. That is true sexual freedom. In fact, you are stifling a kids ability to engage with the person they love. You are abusing them by your intolerance (sarcasm).

I think the issue hinges on the fact that having sex with children is abuse. So, no matter how “consenting” a child is, it is still abuse, which is unacceptable. So maybe pedophiles are born that way, just like hetrosexuals and homosexuals, but pedophiles are abusing children. Homosexuals just like hetrosexuals are choosing consenting adult partners to love. Your argument is really disturbing.

I appreciate the comment Allison but this is not “my argument” the point of my post is to point out the hypocrisy in the arguments that homosexual advocates use to assert that their activity is morally okay. If being born that way is an argument for morals then the who are you to take away the pedophiles sexual rights? If a young person is consenting then is it really abuse? Aren’t you taking away the rights of these young people to engage in sex with the people they love? See the issue?

I agree that pedophiles who engage in sex with children are morally wrong. But, that is because I have a grounding for my morals. The homosexual cannot use the the argument of “I was born this way”, “My sexuality is immutable”, “I didn’t choose to be homosexual just like you didn’t choose the be heterosexual” because the pedophile can reply, “I didn’t choose to be attracted to prepubescent kids just like you didn’t choose to be homosexual.” That’s the point.

I would ask that you give the article another read and then tell me how my argument is “disturbing”.

Did you read the article in it’s fullness? Advocates for pedophilia and homosexual practice are using the same arguments. If you are going to accept the homosexual arguments as they are currently being used then on what basis do you reject the pedophile’s argument?

If it is simply an age thing why can’t we just change the legal consenting age? Would you be opposed to that? If you are then I think you are taking away the rights of people that can’t help that they are attracted to younger people. They were “born that way” so they are going to fight to reduce the legal age of consent. If you are consistent then you would help them do this.

I will say that I am consistently amazed at your ability to selectively ignore others’ rational points. :) But that is neither here nor there. Psychologists and any reasonable person will maintain that there is an age of consent where a teenager begins to think with a thought process that is on par with an adult’s.

Does this vary for everyone? Absolutely, but there is very little room for grey area in our legal system; so in America, the line is drawn at 18. It should be noted that there are clauses, depending on state I believe, that allow individuals over 18 to have relations with minors just as If they were high school classmates if there is a small enough age difference. (think 2, 3 years)

There are all sorts of restrictions placed on minors. They cant smoke, drink alcohol, drive etc. Are some on them ready to do these things at a younger age? Sure. But once again, there has to be a line. I reject the pedophilia argument, and am frankly disturbed that you drew this comparison in your mind, on the grounds that it is an illegal act because it has been proven that a child can’t consent the way an older person can until they are past adolescence. Same sex relationships are not illegal and comprise two consenting adults. I hope that in time you can understand the difference. I will be praying for you, Travis.

I understand the difference between the two positions, however the argumentation for both are exactly the same. Read this again:

Our movement today stresses the liberation and empowerment of young people. Instead of pedagogy, democracy. Rather than a Greek love mentor-relationship, the companionship of independent and autonomous individuals. In place of male supremacy, a vision of sexual, economic, and political liberation for all. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream.

That was David Thorstad. He gave a speech entitled “Pederasty and Homosexuality” at the Semana Cultural Lesbica-Gay event held in Mexico City in 1998. People like this have grounds for asking for sexual liberation of “children” and “boy-lovers” if you accept the argumentation of the homosexual because they are the exact same arguments. You cannot deny one and agree with the other. Your choices are both arguments are valid or both are not. Thanks for the offering of prayer but one can only have right standing before God through repentance of sin and faith in the Lord Jesus. I pray that your eyes will be open.

Yes, verbally similar argument, but different in context. And isn’t context everything, Travis? Example: An innocent man and a guilty man go to court with the same defense, verbatim. Yet, only one of them is actually innocent because the circumstances of their situation are so wildly different.

By maintaining that both arguments are either valid or invalid, you’re putting the world into an absurdly small, black and white box. In fact, you’re inferring that even heterosexual marriage could be invalid because it can can be applied to all of the same arguments you’ve listed above. Not a choice, totally normal, people who hate straight couples are bigots etc. You’re saying that 100% of everyone who uses that argument is either lying or telling the truth. From life experience, I think we both know that’s impossible.

This is why your argument does not stand. It is not logical and it ignores context. Hope this helps, Travis. By the way, isn’t it a little odd to ask someone not to pray for you as it is ineffective and then state that you will pray for them in the same paragraph? Or was that a jab, Travis? ;) Because I can assure you that I am both baptized and a follower of Jesus. God bless.

Your analogy is great but there is a problem. One man’s argument stands because he is guilty and the other one is lying. In order for you to prove your point you would need to show me that the actual argument of the pedophile is invalid. What I mean is this:

Using your analogy we would convict the guy that is guilty by providing evidence that his argument doesn’t hold water. The innocent man’s story would be validated because his story is confirmed by the evidence. It is now your job to prove that the pedophile’s argument is invalid. Both homosexuals and pedophiles use the same argument so you must prove that pedophiles are not “born that way”. You must disprove the words of Prof. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic when he said:

It is likely that no one would choose voluntarily to develop a pedophilic sexual orientation. Those with such an orientation have no more decided to have it than have any of us decided as children to be either heterosexual or homosexual.

If you can disprove this professional then your analogy stands. If you cannot then your analogy fails. The truth is that both homosexual practice and pedophilia are morally wrong.

On another note I do not pretend to read minds or judge the eternal status of any individual. With those I do not know, I assume that people do not know Christ. Also, I never said that prayer was ineffective. I was simply sharing the Gospel with you as I do with many people who comment on this site. I do have a question for you. Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?

No, I do not. I don’t want to go down the gays in the bible rabbit hole with you, so I’ll leave it at this: I believe that the bible is more or less a good book of morals, but when taken literally it causes violence. I also believe that a series of translations and the addition and subtraction of books have negatively affected its versions.

It is clear that you are not looking to debate intelligently, but simply to repeat your own points and ignore what is said by your opposer. That’s fine, Travis. Any reasonable person would read my argument and acknowledge that it is accurate. You cannot completely ignore context without consequence. Both people are born that way, absolutely, but so are straight people. And ALL people. You’re saying that people were born with a sexual tendency so that makes all or none of them valid. That is simply incorrect. Good night and God bless, Travis.

Any scholar of the bible is aware that there are more or less books depending on which Christian denomination you adhere to. Catholicism is an example that comes to mind. Also, do you speak Greek, Travis? My guess is no. Rabbit hole has closed now and onto my closing argument on this post:

The pedophiliac man is guilty because he is infringing upon the rights of another. Namely, the ‘consenting’ child who is not actually on a psychological level developed enough to give consent. Even if the child is mature, it does not excuse the advances of the adult whose ability to reason should be on a different psychological plane than the child’s. Unless you believe that a child can give consent with a thought process equivalent to adults, thus rendering all psychological and scientific findings to date invalid, I don’t understand how you are still championing this opinion. I believe that nobody would choose to become a pedophile. It must be horrible to struggle with such perverse feelings. You’re saying the Berlin’s argument, regardless of context either has to be 100% correct or 100% incorrect and that is a wildly misguided and underdeveloped argument, my friend. Even if pedophiles are ‘born that way,’ and I suspect they are, they are still infringing on others’ rights and causing harm according to the law of the United States and the opinion of most reasonable people. Heterosexuality and homosexuality comprise two consenting adults and are perfectly legal. People are born with all sorts of traits and tendencies. What you are essentially saying is that all tendencies that are nature as opposed to nurture are absolutely right or absolutely wrong. It is why your argument fails. Good day.

You: “Any scholar of the bible is aware that there are more or less books depending on which Christian denomination you adhere to.”

Me: Really? The Catholics are the only ones that have a different set of books they follow.

You: “Catholicism is an example that comes to mind.”

Me: Catholics are the only example.

You: “Also, do you speak Greek, Travis? My guess is no.”

Me: Do you speak Koine Greek? Can you read Koine Greek? That is what the NT was written in. Whether you do or not is irrelevant unless you can provide evidence to back up your claims or corruption.

You: “The pedophiliac man is guilty because he is infringing upon the rights of another. Namely, the ‘consenting’ child who is not actually on a psychological level developed enough to give consent.”

Me: I agree but his defense is the exact same as the homosexual. You need to get over the fact that you don’t like it because the discussion has gone far beyond what people like or don’t like. You think it is wrong for the pedophile to have relations with a minor and I do too but I also know that homosexual practice is wrong. The arguments for both hold no water.

You: “Even if the child is mature, it does not excuse the advances of the adult whose ability to reason should be on a different psychological plane than the child’s. Unless you believe that a child can give consent with a thought process equivalent to adults, thus rendering all psychological and scientific findings to date invalid,”

Me: Give me evidence of a child’s psychological growth and whether they can “consent” or not. I am not simply going to take your word for it. Also, I am not the one holding the position that children can or cannot consent. That’s called a logical fallacy.

You: “Even if pedophiles are ‘born that way,’ and I suspect they are, they are still infringing on others’ rights and causing harm according to the law of the United States and the opinion of most reasonable people.”

Me: Well, they are fighting for there to be no consenting age. That is what we are talking about. The laws of the USA are fluid. They change. You need to provide an unchanging moral ground to anchor your position on. Also, most “reasonable people” believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Going with your logic you shouldn’t accept same-sex marriages.

You: “What you are essentially saying is that all tendencies that are nature as opposed to nurture are absolutely right or absolutely wrong. It is why your argument fails.”

Me: No that is not what I am saying. I am looking at the common arguments for both homosexuals and pedophiles and comparing them. The fact that they are strikingly similar is not my fault. You are mistaking categories. I never said that I agreed with their arguments. What I did say is that because they are the same we should reject both of them.

I guess I would like to add this comment: In heterosexual pairings there is something referred to as an “age of consent” If a man has consentual sex with an adult woman, it may be immoral, but it is not illegal. If, however, he has consentual sex with a female who is younger than the legally declared age of consent, it is illegal and punishable by law. It is based on the fact that a child is truly not the equal of an adult in making personal decisions. Pederasty refers specifically to sex with a child (either female or male) who is not old enough by law to give informed consent. I think this concept applies equally to both sexes.
Now, in Puritan America, heterosexual fornication and adultery were indeed legal offences which were punished by law (see The Scarlet Letter) This is simply no longer the case, but sex with underage children is still justifiably illegal. However much an adult wants to engage in this behavior, there is no legal way he can do this. John

And I think given the latest ruling by SCOTUS, we should all be concerned that this practice, along with many others, could become allowable in 30 or 50 or 100 years just as same-sex marriage did using their argument. Precedent has been set, too, with this ruling. We all think this is wrong, vile and horrible now (and it is and rightly we should!), but what about many years from now? Many thought (and still do think) homosexuality was/is morally wrong many years ago, but look at where we are now. 5 judges forced it upon the nation, but 30-something states had already voted for it before that. What once was a “no” is now a “yes”, not just by force (the SCOTUS ruling) but also because many changed their minds and morals over time because of the slow integration and indoctrination of normalizing something immoral. The logical conclusion of the homosexual agenda to make same-sex marriage a “right” and to get “equality” is the same agenda that can and will be used by many other groups to get the same “rights” and “equality”. It may seem awful now, but give it time as they try to groom and work to get compassion for their “orientation” and seek to normalize it in society just as the LGBT’s and polygamist have. When morals have no absolute foundation of which to be built from (God and His Word first and the U.S. Constitution as our guide for American law), then anything goes. Man has become a god. When will SCOTUS make a decision that ISN’T ok with you? That’s the problem with judicial activism without regard for the Constitution and inventing “rights”. May God have mercy upon us and allow those who don’t see this clearly, see clearly.

So all of these arguments I have seen come down to “age of consent” and “legality” and “psychologists say”. But ALL of these points have changed over time and will change again, so they are invalid as permanent arguments.
Everyone who used them must admit that if the laws were changed and psychologist were to claim children can consent that they would give up their arguments, or else they are liars.
To keep arguing it “wrong” once the law, the basis for their disagreement, is no more, would be foolish

What about the pederasy advocates that are arguing the idea of why sexual activity is classified as abuse when it pertains to consenting people under age but a thing of love between adults. If we as a society allow more and more this ideology of sexual freedom and sexual expression we run the risk of further stripping the sanctity and purpose of sex between a man and wife and allowing it to become nothing more than a casual encounter between and two objects. Human, non human, under age, it’s all up for the taking.

I find it interesting the “age of consent” argument is being used by pro-gay/liberal people while they consistently tell children under the age of consent how to have “safe sex”.
So youre mature enough to consent to sex as long as both people are underage? Ok got it. #abstinenceworks #selfcontrol #wearenotanimals #illogical

And using the exact SAME arguments are the folks who practice beastiality… No kidding, mark my words, it is “legal” to marry your pet and have sex with it, IN [certain parts] of America now… Talk about some[one]thing who CAN NOT give consent…..!!
Excellent article, and completely sensible comparisons. Makes sense…. in a REALLY sick and sad way, to me. Thanks!
Regards,
Valerie

It is interesting here in the argument for an age of consent as a limiting factor on someone’s right to practice pedophilia. An age of consent is an arbitrary age set by lawmakers. We appeal to the law when saying that a pedophile should be restrained from practicing what is in his nature by birth. Those who hold to a biblical view of sexuality simply do the same. We say that there is a higher law, God’s Law, that should restrain the homosexual from acting on his nature, even if that nature is something he/she was born with.

It amazes me how timely this post from 2012 is today. Standing 3 year in the future it is easy that Sam & John were so wrong. If you accept argument “A” (“I was born this way. I did not chose this.”) as proof that an activity (homosexual behavior) should be acceptable, then you must accept the same argument again for each new activity (pederasty, bigamy, bestiality, necrophilia, kleptomania, etc.) that can use the same argument (“I was born this way. I did not choose this.”). Since our judges have now accepted this as a legitimate argument, rather than adhere to an absolute moral code, they have no choice but to remove laws that block the legalization of these other activities. Moral absolutes are necessary to protect a society. Since our society has already rejected the moral absolute of sex outside of marriage as “wrong” we had no way to logically disagree with underage minors having sex with one another. This will be our downfall in protecting our children from pedophiles. If it is ok for two 17 year olds to have sex and it is ok for two 18 year olds to have sex, we truly have no ground to legally prevent an 18 yr old from having sex with a 17 yr old. The legal system will first lower the age of consent to 16. SInce it is obvious from the teen pregnancy rate that 16 yr olds are having sex, society will make no objection. When that has become old news, pedophiles will then push for the age to be lowered again. It will legally happen bit by bit. Since the average age of first sexual encounter is currently age 12 anyway, it will not be difficult to lower it to 13. Once the age limit is lowered, it will allow both 18 yr olds as well as 58 yr olds to have sex with a 13 yr old because of course to do otherwise would be “age discrimination”. Eventually under that argument even the lower age of 13 will be “restrictive” and “discriminatory” and all laws protecting children from pedophiles will be removed. (Pedophiles are already claiming that since other historic cultures did these heinous things, they must be ok.) Next people will claim that anything we see in nature must be acceptable for humans as well. (Since this was one of the arguments in support of homosexuality.) Since Judges have already accepted that premise for homosexuality, they will have no logical legal standing to say that bigamy or necrophilia is wrong. People can be shocked & morally outraged at this, but really if they don’t accept the moral argument that an activity is wrong because the Bible says so, then they have no ground to object. Because our laws are fluid, there is no reason not change them unless laws are held up by moral absolutes that are not fluid or changing.